extend Base.contains#39
Conversation
extend `Base.contains` using a precise type signature so that `contains` can be used without qualification. No need to export something from Base.
|
While I'm definitely sympathetic to this (I've wanted it for quite some time), it was purposefully excluded. See #5 (comment). Note also that as implemented, this constitutes a breaking change; it will no longer Just Work™ for arbitrary arguments that implement |
|
I wonder if there's a different verb we can use so that have our cake and eat too, so to speak, i.e. we can leave the arguments untyped for fans of duck typing and also export without conflicting with a Base function. Could be worth an issue to discuss. |
|
If we want to keep using This allows users to opt-in to the |
extend
Base.containsusing a precise type signature so thatcontainscan be used without qualification. No need to export something fromBase.